A92147:845
A treatise of civil policy
A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and privilege, in reference to the supreme prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divinity of St Andrews in Scotland.A treatise of civil policy: being a resolution of forty three questions concerning prerogative, right and priviledge, in reference to the supream prince and the people. / By Samuel Rutherford professor of divintiy of St Andrews in Scotland.
London, : Printed and are to be sold by Simon Miller at the Star in St Pauls Church-yard near the West end., 1657 i.e. 1656
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Before I can proceed to other Scripture-proofs for the lawfulness1 of Resistance; this Distinction, rejected by Royalists, must be cleared. This is an evident and sensible distinction: The King in concreto, the Man who is King; And the King in abstracto, the Royal office of the King. The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from, Rom. 13. we affirm with Buchanan, that Paul, Rom. 13, speaketh of the office and duty of good Magistrates, and that the text speaketh nothing of an absolute King, nothing of a Tyrant; and the Royalists distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not, against the Law, l. pret. 10. gl. Bart. de pub. in Rem. and therefore we move the question here, Whether or no to resist the illegal and Tyrannical will of the man, who is King, be to resist the King, and the ordinance of God, we say no: Nor do we deny the King, abusing his power in unjust acts, to remain King, and the Minister of God, whose person for his royal office, and his Royal Office both are to be honoured, reverenced and obeyed. God forbid that we should do so as the sons of Belial, imputing to us the doctrine of Anabaptists, and the doctrine falsely imputed to Wycliffe, That Dominion is founded upon supernatural grace, and that a Magistrate being in the state of mortal sin, cannot be a lawful Magistrate▪ we teach no such thing. The P. Prelate showeth us his sympathy with Papists, and that he buildeth the Monuments and Sepulchres of the slain and murdered Prophets▪ when he refusing to open his mouth in the Gates for the righteous, professeth he will not purge the Witnesses of Christ, the Waldenses and Wycliffe, and Huss of2 these notes of disloyalty, but that these acts proceeding from this root of bitterness, the abused power of a King should be acknowledged with obedience active or passive, in these unjust acts, we deny.
BEfore I can proceed to other Scripture-proofes for the lawfulnesse1 of Resistance; this Distinction, rejected by Royalists, must be cleered. This is an evident and sensible distinction: The King in concreto, the Man who is King; And the King in abstracto, the Royall office of the King. The ground of this distinction we desire to be considered from,